Homosexuality was actually a part of the DSM as a mental illness, but was taken out. Some in the current committee looking at revising the latest version of the DSM was thinking about taking out pedophilia as well. If that isn't on (or over?) the edge of progressive thinking, i'm not sure what is. They are trying to improve the manual it would seem, not endlessly expand or medicalize behaviour. It's quite a hard process i'm sure, given the complexity of behaviour and mental process. P.S. I don't think the grandparent mentioned what the DSM was: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

No one should be surprised by this, it was predicted quite a while back:

"Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable—he lent her the computer, and **told her his password**. This way, if Lissa read his books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them. It was still a **crime**, but the SPA would not automatically find out about it. They would only find out if Lissa reported him."

The Right to Read
Richard Stallman
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Now that the precedent is set, its a matter of the government slowly upping the punishments until no one shares any kind of information without first paying for it.

Or just donate to the EFF in the first place

And the radiation that is pumped up through the stack, the mercury as well? As you say though, any uncosted externalities should be costed in to level the playing field.

Perhaps if the media weren't using scaremongering headlines such as linking the nuclear accident with the tsunami death tolls, etc., then the Japanese government maybe been more inclined to release the information. As it is, hasn't the price of potasium iodide rocketed from $10 to $500 in the States? Germany has shut down all of its nuclear reactors? (Someone should calculate the radioactive coal ash, pollution, mortailty increase resulting in the switchover to coal for the time being).

As for the news, if you don't believe me look up ( http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2045416&cid=35545774 ) at the comment which links to a blog that is recording the journalist hall of shame in covering this nuclear accident which has killed how many people, 0?

The radition dosage at the gates of the plant were about 10m/Sieverts for a while (1 chest X-Ray per hour) and bumped out to 100m/Sieverts at one point. Source: Wikipedia article, and their sources on it. As others have mentioned, the radition 10km away would be what one would get on a plane trip. If someone said radition dosage of a plane trip, eating a few bananas or smoking a cig or staying at my home, I'd have stayed.

There doesn't appear to be an issue with fires in spent fuel ponds according to this article I found (below), and the discussions I've been having here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/18/fukushima-radiation-tsunamis/

Spent fuel heatup following loss of water during storage. [PWR; BWR]
Benjamin, A.S. ; McCloskey, D.J. ; Powers, D.A. ; Dupree, S.A.

Abstract: An analysis of spent fuel heatup following a hypothetical accident involving drainage of the storage pool is presented. Computations based upon a new computer code called SFUEL have been performed to assess the effect of decay time, fuel element design, storage rack design, packing density, room ventilation, drainage level, and other variables on the heatup characteristics of the spent fuel and to predict the conditions under which clad failure will occur. Possible storage pool design modifications and/or onsite emergency action have also been considered.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6272964

A commenter posted:
>>Importantly, reading the documents introduction
>>& conclusion section seems to indicate that
>>there is a “decay time” of 5 to 150 days after the
>>BWR fuel assemblies are put in the spent fuel
>>pond, after which the fuel assemblies do not
>>reach the critical 850-950C following a complete
>>water drain.

The article seems to suggest it isn't a burning issue, although the radiation would be quite locally intense (within the pool itself) until it is recovered by water. Nothing would be leaking about into the air though. If anyone has a different take on the article share them.

"chemical from chem plants washed inshore over crop field by the tsunami"

I am glad you brought this up. If toxic chemicals are released into the enviroment, how long are they toxic for? Forever. On the other hand, the release of nuclear materials into the environment will eventually decay into products no more radioactive than background radition. What's even better is those things that are highly radioactive have very short half-lifes, meaning their danger is reduced much quicker. Thus radioactive materials maybe thought of as 'self cleaning'.

ParetoJ